Madhuri Gupta, Second Secretary in the Press and Information Wing of the Indian High Commission in Islamabad, who is alleged to be a mole of the Pakistani intelligence, was called to New Delhi ostensibly for consultations by the Ministry of External Affairs. When she reached Delhi on April 23, she was reportedly taken into custody by the Delhi Police. After a preliminary interrogation by a joint team of the Delhi Police, the Intelligence Bureau and the Research and Analysis Wing (R&AW), she was produced before a magistrate for obtaining her continued police custody to enable the interrogation to continue.

At this stage the media seems to have come to know of her detention and interrogation. There has been a welter of confusing and contradictory reports in the media-- much of it, in my view, based on leaks from the Ministry of Home Affairs on the eve of the SAARC summit starting at Thimpu, Bhutan, on April 29. It has been suspected for some time by well-informed observers that the MHA does not subscribe to the reported interest of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in the resumption of a composite dialogue with Pakistan. Details of the case, as they emerge, will strengthen the MHA’s feelings about the futility of a composite dialogue with Pakistan at present till Pakistan gives up its hostile attitude to India.

The Prime Minister himself is unlikely to allow this case-- despite its being a serious embarrassment-- to influence his decision whether the time is ripe for a resumption of the composite dialogue. His decision will be influenced by Pakistan’s stand on the question of anti-India terrorism from Pakistani territory and not by Pakistani intelligence agencies recruiting Indian agents. They have been doing so since 1947. So have we. Intelligence agencies are meant to collect intelligence. Human intelligence demands recruitment of agents.

While we should be worried over this second instance of the penetration of the Indian High Commission--the first one at a more senior and sensitive level was in the 1980s-- there is no need to over-dramatise it and indulge in chest-beating about our alleged incompetence to prevent it. What is required is not one more scene in the never-ending Indo-Pakistan drama, but a clinical analysis of the case to understand how she was recruited, by whom, how she was operated, what made her work for the Pakistani intelligence etc.

The clinical analysis should have three main objectives: First, to identify weaknesses in our counter-intelligence set-up which enabled the Pakistani intelligence to recruit and operate her; second, an assessment of the damage caused by her; and third, an understanding of how the Pakistani intelligence works now.

The picture is far from clear regarding the history of her alleged relationship with the Pakistani intelligence and the damage caused by her. In the welter of speculative reports appearing in the media, what attracted my attention was a piece of information--as yet unverified-- that she was actually recruited not by the Inter-Services Intelligence, our usual bete noire, but by Pakistan’s Intelligence Bureau (IB),

If this ultimately proves to be correct, this would indicate that the Pakistani IB is once again playing an active role in intelligence-collection operations relating to India and India’s role in Afghanistan. It used to be very active against India till 1971. After 1971 and particularly under Zia-ul-Haq, the role of the IB was gradually diluted and the ISI was given the leadership role in India-centric operations--whether for intelligence collection or for the sponsorship of terrorism or for other covert actions. The IB was gradually militarised by inducting an increasing number of serving and retired military officers into it. This militarization gathered momentum under Pervez Musharraf. For all practical purposes, the IB became an appendage of the ISI.

When she was Prime Minister, Benazir Bhutto had to restore the police character of the IB and give a more active and independent role in the intelligence community of Pakistan. Her efforts were got scuttled by the ISI. Since taking over as the President in September 2008, President Asif Ali Zardari has been trying to restore the pre-1971 position of the IB as the principal internal intelligence and security agency of Pakistan. He has placed it under his confidante Rehman Malick, who is the Interior Minister. Rehman Malick, who himself is a retired Police officer from the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA), has diluted the presence of serving and retired Army officers in the IB and restored the pre-eminence of Police officers in the organization once again. After being headed by military officers continuously since 1990 except for a short period between September 1997 and August 1998, it is headed again by senior police officers since August 2008. The present Director-General of the IB Javed Noor used to be the Inspector-General of Police of Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir when he was appointed to head the IB in May, 2009.

The US has also been encouraging the demilitarization of the IB and the process of the restoration of civilian pre-eminence in the internal intelligence and security set-up of Pakistan. It has increased the allocation of funds for the IB and has been helping it in other ways too for making it once again a professional intelligence organization run by civilians as it used to be before 1971. The US sees in the strengthening of the IB one way of reducing the negative role of the ISI in Pakistan.

In our preoccupation with the ISI, we have not been paying adequate attention to the rejuvenation of the Pakistani IB. If the reports that Madhuri Gupta was recruited and handled by the IB are correct, it underlines the importance of our paying more attention to the IB.

If you wish your letter to be considered for publication in the print magazine, we request you to use a proper name, with full postal address - you could still maintain your anonymity, but please desist from using unpublishable sobriquets and handles

Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.

1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.

2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.

To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.

Thanks and Regards,
Tony Joseph

1/D-42

Apr 29, 2010

09:48 AM

Madhur Gupta is a 53 year old spinster - desperate to have her last fling and highly susceptible to the amoral advances of any Pakistani agent.

This is one of the oldest ploys in Espionage ( with the gender roles reversed in this age of Women's Lib ).

It was idiotic but typical of the daal - farting Babus of New Delhi MEA to post such a vulnerable person in Pakistan.

We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism

But:

1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.

2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads

3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site

4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.

5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT

6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.

7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.

8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.

9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:

a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you